Big Ten Expansion

[MADHAT1]

I would like to see Missouri join , but doubt they would leave the SEC for the B1G.
Virginia along with them, but unless the ACC folds, doubt we'll ever see VA in the B1G.

edit: think Missouri would fit the B1Gs Midwestern culture , but heard people say it fits the SEC quite well.
Virginia would bring a southern flavor but , along with Maryland, make the DC TV market B1G territory for FB and Basketball

 

[Knight_Light]

Oklahoma would immediately be one of the biggest brands in the B1G, arguably the biggest.

Huh?

Since 1986, Oklahoma has as many national titles as:

Washington
Colorado
Ga Tech

OU Football is big...but it doesn't come close to the alumni/fan power of fan bases like Michigan or Ohio State, regardless how many national titles either has won.

 

[Nosoj]

Huh?

Since 1986, Oklahoma has as many national titles as:

Washington
Colorado
Ga Tech

OU Football is big...but it doesn't come close to the alumni/fan power of fan bases like Michigan or Ohio State, regardless how many national titles either has won.

Well, first of all, that's more titles than Michigan has won since 1949. Second, I didn't say they were the biggest, but an argument could be made. Personally, I'd have them behind Ohio State and Michigan, but ahead of Penn State and Nebraska. Third, if you want to play arbitrary time frame comparisons, Oklahoma is the P5 team with the most wins and the highest win percentage since 1999, trailing only Boise State in both categories. The Wall Street Journal has them as the 6th most valuable program, behind Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Notre Dame and Florida.

Florida is not coming. Texas and Notre Dame are both long shots. I think Oklahoma is a no brainer if they're in play.

 

[wheezer]

I don't understand your logic. Without pods, in a 16-team conference, you play every school once every 4 years. With pods you see every team once every 2 years. How does that prove pods aren't needed. Since you want to play other Big Ten schools as often as possible, why wouldn't you prefer the system in which you see them twice as often.

-------
Add one team in the east and one team to the west and play one more league game each year

Don't screw with our almost perfect division beyond that....this, if you feel absolutely the need to expand

But in reality, keeping the league as is, is the very best thing for RU

 

[HeavenUniv.]

Speaking of expansion,here is an article from a few months ago,regarding Nebraska-Lincoln and Arizona State in regards to Big Ten Hockey--http://www.cornnation.com/2015/3/28...pansion-could-include-arizona-state-and-maybe

 

[Scarlet Shack]

Scourge - redo your math. If you are playing the other 7 teams in your eight team division once a year, that leaves two games for the other division - so you would rotate through the other division in four years. That might be acceptable over pods. Anything above that and without pods, you really cease to have division at all - you have conferences with a crossover game and a share championship and TV network.

Nicky - yes - the map has flaws. Its just the best we have other than this - http://commoncensus.org/sports_map.php?sport=5 (which is wht the other NY Times analysis was based on)- which has similar flaws - but also shows the same sharp divide at the Kansas/Missouri border.

Patrick - KC is closer - and thats why Missouri doesnt dominate the way it does in the Illinois portions of the Saint Louis market (since Missouri is about as far away as Champaign, and Saint Louis, like Kansas City, in Missouri.)

Shack - you say that - but neither of the maps above, combined with the knowledge of the distribution of people in the KC market (more in Missouri) really backs that up. For basketball, certainly I would expect Kansas to be more popular - they are a national name. But nothing on their news websites indicates that the area is dominated by Kansas FB - and as we know - FB is everything these days.

derleider:

You typical devil's advovcate response.

Exactly how many times have you been to Missouri and Kansas City

I have been there double digits in the last decade and a half and know the landscape...

Sometimes, just respect the source that someone says something and does not need to explain everything

 

[Scarlet Shack]

And, for the last time

Missou is in the SEC and loves it...never leaving

UConn is NOT going to be looked at for the big ten. They are one step from deemphasizing football and joining the big east again and going 1-AA.

BC is not on the big ten radar

Notre Dame is very much a long term end game for the big ten.

Big ten wants to expand footprint in a contiguous manner....

 

[FlintTown]

And, for the last time

Missou is in the SEC and loves it...never leaving

UConn is NOT going to be looked at for the big ten. They are one step from deemphasizing football and joining the big east again and going 1-AA.

BC is not on the big ten radar

Notre Dame is very much a long term end game for the big ten.

Big ten wants to expand footprint in a contiguous manner....

Missouri would leave the SEC in a heartbeat, IMO. Not because of what their coaches or fans think, but because their administration is paid to do what's in the best interest of the school.

I agree that UCONN and BC are not that attractive in a 20-team or fewer league. However, those two start to look pretty appealing if things get out of control and conferences get even bigger (unlikely).

 

[Western PA]

Missouri would leave the SEC in a heartbeat, IMO. Not because of what their coaches or fans think, but because their administration is paid to do what's in the best interest of the school.

I agree that UCONN and BC are not that attractive in a 20-team league league. However, those two start to look pretty appealing if things get out of control and conferences get even bigger (unlikely).

As a Mizzou alum I can assure you any bridge between the B1G and Missouri has been burned beyond rebuilding. MU administrators felt they were mislead or lied to. I assume B1G executives have harsh feelings of their own. Mizzou is in the SEC to stay.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

everyone seems to want more expansion, and seems to think the more schools the better.

i have absolutely no idea why.

it's a money loser for the schools already in the conf, and it's absurd to have twice as many or more schools in the conference, than you could play in a season.

if RU wants to play UNC or UVa, then just sched them non conf., or go join the ACC.


that said, if the B10 must expand, i say add 6 more teams and go to 20 , (i couldn't care less which 6 schools).

the divisions could be,

Division A

RU

PSU

UMd

Neb

and the other new 6 schools.


Division B

Indiana

PU

Mich

MSU

OSU

Wisc

Minn

Northwestern

Illinois

Iowa


no crossover games at all as part of the conf sched.

any crossovers will be deemed non conf.

let division A do what ever they want, and keep Delany

let division B succeed from the herd taking the B10 name with them, get a new commissioner, go back to an 8 game conf sched with 4 non con games in football, and a home and home 18 game conf sched in basketball.

after which division A, (which is now it's own 10 school conference), can expand all they want, without totally destroying the original Big 10.

 

[NickyNewark51]

-------
Add one team in the east and one team to the west and play one more league game each year

Don't screw with our almost perfect division beyond that....this, if you feel absolutely the need to expand

But in reality, keeping the league as is, is the very best thing for RU

That I agree with.

 

[Knight_Light]

Well, first of all, that's more titles than Michigan has won since 1949.

Hence the comment...as no one in their right mind would consider Washington, Ga Tech or Colorado programs "bigger" than Michigan, even if those 3 teams have won more recent national titles.

 

[Knight_Light]

everyone seems to want more expansion, and seems to think the more schools the better.

i have absolutely no idea why.

it's a money loser for the schools already in the conf...............

Do yo have proof of that?

Seems that conferences, their TV partners and even their own conf networks, have the facts as every time a conf expands, current teams earn more $$$.

It happened for the Big Ten when they went from 10 teams to 11.

It happened for the Big Ten when they went from 11 teams to 12.

It happened for the Big Ten when they went from 12 teams to 14.

Would it happen if they went to 16 teams?

Maybe...but I'll trust those with actual facts vs comments being spewed up on a message board.

 

[derleider]

Oklahoma may have a small home market, but you can't get any bluer blood. Texas has more overall wins, but Oklahoma has more National Titles, more conference titles, more consensus All-Americans, more Heisman winners, more Bowl appearances, more BCS appearances...

Oklahoma would immediately be one of the biggest brands in the B1G, arguably the biggest. The downside is academics, but they're relatively equal to Nebraska. If you can get Oklahoma, you take Oklahoma.

And yet the PAC12 turned them down.

THey arent Nebraska. They arent OSU or Michigan or PSU. THey certianly arent Texas. They are in a tier below that despite all of those accodlades - because ultimately their state doesnt have neough people, and they are still mroe or less a regional team (like most CFB teams.)

Well, first of all, that's more titles than Michigan has won since 1949. Second, I didn't say they were the biggest, but an argument could be made. Personally, I'd have them behind Ohio State and Michigan, but ahead of Penn State and Nebraska. Third, if you want to play arbitrary time frame comparisons, Oklahoma is the P5 team with the most wins and the highest win percentage since 1999, trailing only Boise State in both categories. The Wall Street Journal has them as the 6th most valuable program, behind Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, Notre Dame and Florida.

Florida is not coming. Texas and Notre Dame are both long shots. I think Oklahoma is a no brainer if they're in play.

Oklahoma bigger than PSU or Nebraska? Why - both of THEM have more recent titles than Oklahoma too. Nebraska has a bigger national fan base, and PSU a hugely bigger market.

But thats all meaningless - the real question is - is OU better than a) doing nothing or b) bringing in a UVa/UNC type. I would so no to a - I dont see hwo they boost revenues enough to pay for themselves ($45 million a year going forward) AND enough extra for the other teams (another $14 million for every extra $1 million extra per team.) As for b) - in the current era of conference networks - no. In the future, when revenue producing will likely go back to being based mostly on regional and national popularity - probably yes.

 

[srru86]

or go join the ACC.

 

[Nosoj]

And yet the PAC12 turned them down.

The Pac-12 didn't turn down Oklahoma, they turned down the Oklahoma/Oklahoma State combo pack. The Big Ten would probably do the same, Oklahoma State offers...hey, remember Barry Sanders and Thurman Thomas?? Remember that time they almost played for a title before inexplicably losing to Iowa State?

THey arent Nebraska. They arent OSU or Michigan or PSU. THey certianly arent Texas. They are in a tier below that despite all of those accodlades - because ultimately their state doesnt have neough people, and they are still mroe or less a regional team (like most CFB teams.)

Agree to disagree. Oklahoma was 26th in average TV ratings last year, the highest Big 12 team. Nebraska was 17th, Penn State was 25th and Texas was 34th. Put Oklahoma and the B1G and I would put money on that number going up, if only due to better distribution (there were 7 B1G teams and 12 SEC teams in the top 25, along with FSU, Notre Dame, NC State, Oregon, USC and UCLA). http://texags.com/s/15550/infographic-2014-college-football-tv-ratings

Oklahoma bigger than PSU or Nebraska? Why - both of THEM have more recent titles than Oklahoma too. Nebraska has a bigger national fan base, and PSU a hugely bigger market.

Uh, no they haven't both won more recently than Oklahoma.

Nebraska split with Michigan in 1997. Penn State won in 1986.

But thats all meaningless - the real question is - is OU better than a) doing nothing or b) bringing in a UVa/UNC type. I would so no to a - I dont see hwo they boost revenues enough to pay for themselves ($45 million a year going forward) AND enough extra for the other teams (another $14 million for every extra $1 million extra per team.) As for b) - in the current era of conference networks - no. In the future, when revenue producing will likely go back to being based mostly on regional and national popularity - probably yes.

I do agree with you on point b). Especially going back to the average ratings (where Virginia finished 45th, between Iowa and Arizona State and UNC finished 55th, between Rutgers and Iowa State). And Delany (or someone) said when they added Nebraska that they're not making expansion decisions based on the next 10 years, they're making the decision based on the next 100 years. Even with population and everything taken into account, Oklahoma is just hugely more valuable to a sports network than UNC and UVA.

Point a)...I don't know the answer to that either. There's a lot to consider...BTN carriage rates, the value they'd bring to the tier 1 rights, extra inventory of games to sell and sell advertising...I think they would add enough, but I don't know for sure.

For the record, my stance on who I want to see the Big Ten add is "no one". My comment about it being a "no brainer" is if it has to be done. I'd rather see Oklahoma in with someone than UVA and UNC.

 

[Nosoj]

Hence the comment...as no one in their right mind would consider Washington, Ga Tech or Colorado programs "bigger" than Michigan, even if those 3 teams have won more recent national titles.

Well, none have won more recent titles than Michigan either, but that's not the point. The point is, look at the whole package. Look at wins, national titles, BCS/New Years 6 bowls played in. Look at TV ranking (see above), look at licensing (Oklahoma: 419 licenses, Michigan: 406, Penn State: 510, Ohio State: doesn't use the CLC, so ??), revenues (Michigan 3rd, Ohio State 5th, Oklahoma 7th, Penn State 12th, Nebraska 26th). Add in whatever else you want, Oklahoma stacks up pretty well.

 

[Knight_Light]

Well, none have won more recent titles than Michigan either, but that's not the point. The point is, look at the whole package. Look at wins, national titles, BCS/New Years 6 bowls played in. Look at TV ranking (see above), look at licensing (Oklahoma: 419 licenses, Michigan: 406, Penn State: 510, Ohio State: doesn't use the CLC, so ??), revenues (Michigan 3rd, Ohio State 5th, Oklahoma 7th, Penn State 12th, Nebraska 26th). .

And none of the above were factors at all for the invites for RU and Maryland.

Same would probably hold true for any future invite.

 

[Nosoj]

And none of the above were factors at all for the invites for RU and Maryland.

Same would probably hold true for any future invite.

Not necessarily. It entirely depends on who is available and the conditions that they bring.

Expansion is about power and it's about money and consolidating those two things as much as possible in your conference. There's two ways to go about that, bringing in national brands and bringing in population centers and TV markets. Ideally, you get both...like Penn State being added to the Big Ten. The rest of the time, you have to take a compromise. Nebraska brought national brand. Rutgers and Maryland brought population centers and TV markets.

Now, there's a scarcity of both those things. But, population centers and TV markets are and can be fractured. If the Big Ten takes UVA, the SEC can take VT. If the Big Ten adds UNC, the SEC can take NC State. Georgia Tech, the SEC already has Georgia. On the other hand, when you look at the bluest of the blue bloods, the B1G already has 4, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska. USC isn't coming. Florida, Alabama and LSU aren't coming. There's really only about 4 programs left in that class...Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Florida State. If one is available and interested, no strings attached (no little brothers tagging along, no special treatment), you'll regret passing.

 

[Knight_Light]

There's really only about 4 programs left in that class...Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Florida State. If one is available and interested, no strings attached (no little brothers tagging along, no special treatment), you'll regret passing.

There are actually now more "strings attached" to get some of the top wannabes from new GOR contracts in the ACC to buyouts in other P5 conf...to "special treatment" like Big Ten did with Maryland.

Big Ten can't even regret about passing on any of these teams if the conf wants to stay at 14 teams.

 

[srru86]

And none of the above were factors at all for the invites for RU and Maryland.

Same would probably hold true for any future invite.

Yes it's not about on field performance, merit or conventional wisdom.
If you turn on a high percentage of TV sets in a small, poor, market you are just not as valuable as programs like UMD and RU that turn on lots of TVs in big, rich markets, even if it is a small percentage of available viewers.

 

[Scarlet16E]

As a Mizzou alum I can assure you any bridge between the B1G and Missouri has been burned beyond rebuilding. MU administrators felt they were mislead or lied to. I assume B1G executives have harsh feelings of their own. Mizzou is in the SEC to stay.

I don't think Mizzou has any reason to leave the SEC, but what bridges between them and the B1G were there to be burned? Mizzou's administration was making a case for a B1G invite in a very public way through the media. That in itself tells me that there were never any serious discussions with them and the B1G. If discussions had taken place, then they would have been quiet publicly until the actual announcment (like it was with Nebraska and Rutgers).

 

[AntiG]

Not necessarily. It entirely depends on who is available and the conditions that they bring.

Expansion is about power and it's about money and consolidating those two things as much as possible in your conference. There's two ways to go about that, bringing in national brands and bringing in population centers and TV markets. Ideally, you get both...like Penn State being added to the Big Ten. The rest of the time, you have to take a compromise. Nebraska brought national brand. Rutgers and Maryland brought population centers and TV markets.

Now, there's a scarcity of both those things. But, population centers and TV markets are and can be fractured. If the Big Ten takes UVA, the SEC can take VT. If the Big Ten adds UNC, the SEC can take NC State. Georgia Tech, the SEC already has Georgia. On the other hand, when you look at the bluest of the blue bloods, the B1G already has 4, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska. USC isn't coming. Florida, Alabama and LSU aren't coming. There's really only about 4 programs left in that class...Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Florida State. If one is available and interested, no strings attached (no little brothers tagging along, no special treatment), you'll regret passing.

That's why you expand to 20 by aggressively working out a deal with Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State, and work out deals with Georgia Tech, Duke and Rice for academic balance in big-time DMAs. UNC left in the dust due to their major academic scandals.

 

[Nosoj]

There are actually now more "strings attached" to get some of the top wannabes from new GOR contracts in the ACC to buyouts in other P5 conf...to "special treatment" like Big Ten did with Maryland.

Big Ten can't even regret about passing on any of these teams if the conf wants to stay at 14 teams.

Not the special treatment or strings that I meant. Maryland got a chunk of money up front, but they lose out on that money on the back end. No "special treatment" is not allowing Notre Dame to join for all sports and playing 5 B1G teams a year. It's not allowing Texas to keep the LHN or Notre Dame to keep NBC. It's not waiving the buy in for Notre Dame or Texas because they're Notre Dame or Texas. THAT'S what you don't let happen. The "strings attached" is something like Oklahoma needing to bring Oklahoma State. GOR is a hurdle, but not an impossibly high one and if they have to do a deal like they did for Maryland, they will. I posted this before, but read this: http://sportspolitico.com/2015/02/16/will-grant-of-rights-protect-big12-from-future-raids/

Yes it's not about on field performance, merit or conventional wisdom.
If you turn on a high percentage of TV sets in a small, poor, market you are just not as valuable as programs like UMD and RU that turn on lots of TVs in big, rich markets, even if it is a small percentage of available viewers.

Except if you're a big brand and turn on TV's everywhere. Tuscaloosa is the 5th largest city in the 23rd largest state. The state is 46th in median household income. Anyone want to argue that Rutgers and Maryland are more valuable to their conference than Alabama is?

 

[Upstream]

Not necessarily. It entirely depends on who is available and the conditions that they bring.

Expansion is about power and it's about money and consolidating those two things as much as possible in your conference. There's two ways to go about that, bringing in national brands and bringing in population centers and TV markets. Ideally, you get both...like Penn State being added to the Big Ten. The rest of the time, you have to take a compromise. Nebraska brought national brand. Rutgers and Maryland brought population centers and TV markets.

Now, there's a scarcity of both those things. But, population centers and TV markets are and can be fractured. If the Big Ten takes UVA, the SEC can take VT. If the Big Ten adds UNC, the SEC can take NC State. Georgia Tech, the SEC already has Georgia. On the other hand, when you look at the bluest of the blue bloods, the B1G already has 4, Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State and Nebraska. USC isn't coming. Florida, Alabama and LSU aren't coming. There's really only about 4 programs left in that class...Texas, Notre Dame, Oklahoma, Florida State. If one is available and interested, no strings attached (no little brothers tagging along, no special treatment), you'll regret passing.

Oklahoma is a hugely popular program. The problem is if they were to join the B10, the conference would need to find a way to monetize that popularity to ensure that Oklahoma pays for itself. Oklahoma would need to bring in approx $25-$50 million per year.

I have the sense that a lot of Oklahoma's popularity is regional, in Oklahoma, Texas, and nearby areas. That makes it a lot harder to monetize Oklahoma's popularity in the North Central or Northeastern areas served by the B10.

Nebraska is contiguous to the B10, and Nebraska has a lot of fans in Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin. So even though Nebraska itself is a small state, their inclusion in the B10 was more easily monetized throughout the league. Maryland and Rutgers are contiguous to the B10 in large population states in a large population region that has strategic importance to the B10 and a lot fans of other B10 schools. Our inclusion is more easily monetized.

But Oklahoma is pretty far away from most of the B10. And it is a small state that does not provide enough intrinsic value by itself. So it would be hard for the B10 to monetize Oklahoma's popularity. If Oklahoma were to join the B10 with a school from Texas (such as Texas or A&M), then Oklahoma's popularity in Texas could be monetized along with the Texan school.

But coming in by itself, I think it is hard to justify Oklahoma. The B12 took WVU because they needed a warm body. The ACC took Louisville because they needed a warm body. And those schools were the best warm bodies available and willing to make the move. But the B10 is not in that position, so we don't need to add another school unless it really makes sense.

 

[topdecktiger]

Do yo have proof of that?

Seems that conferences, their TV partners and even their own conf networks, have the facts as every time a conf expands, current teams earn more $$$.

It happened for the Big Ten when they went from 10 teams to 11.

It happened for the Big Ten when they went from 11 teams to 12.

It happened for the Big Ten when they went from 12 teams to 14.

Would it happen if they went to 16 teams?

Maybe...but I'll trust those with actual facts vs comments being spewed up on a message board.

There's a bit of truth to this. When a conferences expands, the only money that increases is the TV money. The other forms of revenue (bowl games, CFP, NCAA Tournament) don't increase. They simply have to be split extra ways. The TV contract has to increase enough to cover the cost of splitting this revenue extra ways. Bob Bowlsby said a couple of months ago that this other revenue accounts for about 40-45% of the Big 12's revenue. Given that all conferences have the same basic revenue sources, the 40% figures is probably a good estimate for all the other conferences. At some point, it's not going to be cost effective to keep adding more teams.

 

[Ty Webb]

Except ND would be lucky to win 5 games a yr playing this kind of conference schedule and with millions of the old guard ethnic Irish calling themselves American like the Scots-Irish their mythical status that's already losing juice would disappear rapidly.

LOL.

Can't get through a thread about expansion without someone making this silly point.

 

[jason21psu]

LOL.

Can't get through a thread about expansion without someone making this silly point.

One of my favorites:

 

[NickyNewark51]

LOL.

Can't get through a thread about expansion without someone making this silly point.

Silly but true...I grew up like many northeasterners as 1 of them weaned on the fight song...My Moms family moved to Newark from Tunkhannock,Pa near Scranton along with eighty some G others post depression looking for better opportunities and it was PSU or ND....I went my own way like thousands of their offspring...for the Irish...its almost over. Some don't want to face reality but we've been becoming more american instead of hyphenated.

 

[Nosoj]

Oklahoma is a hugely popular program. The problem is if they were to join the B10, the conference would need to find a way to monetize that popularity to ensure that Oklahoma pays for itself. Oklahoma would need to bring in approx $25-$50 million per year.

I have the sense that a lot of Oklahoma's popularity is regional, in Oklahoma, Texas, and nearby areas. That makes it a lot harder to monetize Oklahoma's popularity in the North Central or Northeastern areas served by the B10.

Nebraska is contiguous to the B10, and Nebraska has a lot of fans in Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin. So even though Nebraska itself is a small state, their inclusion in the B10 was more easily monetized throughout the league. Maryland and Rutgers are contiguous to the B10 in large population states in a large population region that has strategic importance to the B10 and a lot fans of other B10 schools. Our inclusion is more easily monetized.

But Oklahoma is pretty far away from most of the B10. And it is a small state that does not provide enough intrinsic value by itself. So it would be hard for the B10 to monetize Oklahoma's popularity. If Oklahoma were to join the B10 with a school from Texas (such as Texas or A&M), then Oklahoma's popularity in Texas could be monetized along with the Texan school.

But coming in by itself, I think it is hard to justify Oklahoma. The B12 took WVU because they needed a warm body. The ACC took Louisville because they needed a warm body. And those schools were the best warm bodies available and willing to make the move. But the B10 is not in that position, so we don't need to add another school unless it really makes sense.

I have to be more clear on here. My personal position is no expansion. Everything I've said is in a "lets assume expansion is going to happen, who are the best options" kinda way. So, let me restate my last paragraph above, which I should have done in my response to Knight Light as well:

If the B1G is going to expand and one of the big, national brands (Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, Oklahoma) is available, no strings attached and no special treatment, you'll regret passing on them. If you're not planning further expansion, you may not regret it.

That being said, all this boils down to where do you see the audience getting access to the content in the future? If cord cutting continues to be the trend, then you need to be able to put a product out that people actually want to see, not just a product that happens to be on their channel lineup that they're paying for whether they watch or not. I'm sure there's more data out here, but this is what I could find in about 2 minutes of Googling. Average number of viewers per game in millions (please excuse the formatting, I'm not savvy enough to make it show right):

2013 Viewers 2014 Viewers Average
Ohio State 4.37 4.96 4.665
Florida State 3.01 6.25 4.63
Michigan 5.25 3.78 4.515
Notre Dame 3.91 4.2 4.055
Nebraska 3.24 3.02 3.13
Missouri 2.51 3.71 3.11
Penn State 2.65 2.38 2.515
Oklahoma 2.64 2.37 2.505
Texas 2.24 2.07 2.155
Georgia Tech 1.5 2.22 1.86
North Carolina 2.24 1.25 1.745
Virginia 0.88 1.84 1.36
Maryland 1.15 1.5 1.325
Rutgers 0.92 1.26 1.09

Two years is minimal, but in a cord cutting future, Oklahoma (football) is a lot easier to monetize than UNC, UVA or GT (football). The question becomes is it enough to justify expanding instead of standing pat? Or is Notre Dame still on the table or possibly Florida State? Will those trends hold for Missouri and if they do, would Missouri even consider a move? Does UNC basketball bring enough ratings to offset their lower football ratings? I don't have the answers to any of that.

Basically, this is all a long winded way of saying that if the B1G does decide to expand again, I want and think they need big names. I don't want to see Ohio State vs. Virginia or Georgia Tech, I want to see Ohio State vs. Oklahoma. I want Ohio State vs. Texas. I want Ohio State vs. Florida State. Those games are what will sell BTN subscriptions in the unbundled future.

 

[Knight_Light]

If the B1G is going to expand and one of the big, national brands (Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, Oklahoma) is available, no strings attached and no special treatment, you'll regret passing on them. If you're not planning further expansion, you may not regret it.

So if only 1 of the 4 is interested...you are now in favor of expanding to an uneven 15 team membership conf, because as you stated above, "you'll regret passing on them".

 

[AntiG]

So if only 1 of the 4 is interested...you are now in favor of expanding to an uneven 15 team membership conf, because as you stated above, "you'll regret passing on them".

What's the big deal about an "uneven conference"? It'll get filled quickly enough once one of the dominoes fall.

 

[anon_ivydyf0amkzay]

Realignment threads, no matter what school' forum, have serious staying power!!

It's gotta be the fantasy island aspect to it all!

 

[Nosoj]

So if only 1 of the 4 is interested...you are now in favor of expanding to an uneven 15 team membership conf, because as you stated above, "you'll regret passing on them".

 

[Scarlet_Scourge]

Realignment threads, no matter what school' forum, have serious staying power!!

It's gotta be the fantasy island aspect to it all!

It is mostly boredom, we no longer have a dog in the fight, so this is mostly nonsense.

 

[Ty Webb]

Silly but true...I grew up like many northeasterners as 1 of them weaned on the fight song...My Moms family moved to Newark from Tunkhannock,Pa near Scranton along with eighty some G others post depression looking for better opportunities and it was PSU or ND....I went my own way like thousands of their offspring...for the Irish...its almost over. Some don't want to face reality but we've been becoming more american instead of hyphenated.

I was speaking more towards the silly belief that ND won't join the BIG because their schedule would be too tough.

As to your other point, I suspect if ND was dying like you think, I doubt multi billion dollars companies like Under Armour and NBC would be throwing millions at them.

 

[Upstream]

One of my favorites:

View embedded media

I like this, because when the video talks about UND's preseason poll rankings, they show the 2007 pre-season poll where Rutgers is ranked 16.

 

[50 yd line RR]

I have to be more clear on here. My personal position is no expansion. Everything I've said is in a "lets assume expansion is going to happen, who are the best options" kinda way. So, let me restate my last paragraph above, which I should have done in my response to Knight Light as well:

If the B1G is going to expand and one of the big, national brands (Texas, Notre Dame, Florida State, Oklahoma) is available, no strings attached and no special treatment, you'll regret passing on them. If you're not planning further expansion, you may not regret it.

That being said, all this boils down to where do you see the audience getting access to the content in the future? If cord cutting continues to be the trend, then you need to be able to put a product out that people actually want to see, not just a product that happens to be on their channel lineup that they're paying for whether they watch or not. I'm sure there's more data out here, but this is what I could find in about 2 minutes of Googling. Average number of viewers per game in millions (please excuse the formatting, I'm not savvy enough to make it show right):

2013 Viewers 2014 Viewers Average
Ohio State 4.37 4.96 4.665
Florida State 3.01 6.25 4.63
Michigan 5.25 3.78 4.515
Notre Dame 3.91 4.2 4.055
Nebraska 3.24 3.02 3.13
Missouri 2.51 3.71 3.11
Penn State 2.65 2.38 2.515
Oklahoma 2.64 2.37 2.505
Texas 2.24 2.07 2.155
Georgia Tech 1.5 2.22 1.86
North Carolina 2.24 1.25 1.745
Virginia 0.88 1.84 1.36
Maryland 1.15 1.5 1.325
Rutgers 0.92 1.26 1.09

Two years is minimal, but in a cord cutting future, Oklahoma (football) is a lot easier to monetize than UNC, UVA or GT (football). The question becomes is it enough to justify expanding instead of standing pat? Or is Notre Dame still on the table or possibly Florida State? Will those trends hold for Missouri and if they do, would Missouri even consider a move? Does UNC basketball bring enough ratings to offset their lower football ratings? I don't have the answers to any of that.

Basically, this is all a long winded way of saying that if the B1G does decide to expand again, I want and think they need big names. I don't want to see Ohio State vs. Virginia or Georgia Tech, I want to see Ohio State vs. Oklahoma. I want Ohio State vs. Texas. I want Ohio State vs. Florida State. Those games are what will sell BTN subscriptions in the unbundled future.

I think when it comes to the BIG academics might play a role in any expansion I could be wrong but I don't think Oklahoma is not an option. I

 

[NickyNewark51]

No to Uconn, Mass, Temple, etc. We'll look like a strong MAC.

Some of their fan's like Jimmy Serrano suck and think they belong ahead of us.....he exclaims....note MY Nattys...get in line...he has NO IDEA what it takes for being attractive...get in line Colonial league....

 

[NickyNewark51]

No offense taken. But I would point out that you can discuss all those things you mentioned still in the same context of who you would like to see in the Big Ten. The two are not mutually exclusive. I gave my REASONS why I would like to see UVA and Notre Dame join the Big Ten. Frankly, what is really boring not to mention repetitive are the repeated reasons why schools like UConn and Iowa State will not be in the Big Ten.

Too me a Jersey guy Who's lived between Albany and Schenectady since 81 ....20 and 15 yrs NYC-Capitol Region....UVA sounds nice but the Irish bring baggage similar to UT.......and i'm Scottish on dads side and Irish on moms.....give me OK,UConn or VT/Kans/GT...